Ron Paul on Glenn Beck

[Hulkein]

Anyone else catch this? He was on Glenn Beck's program for a full hour. I was intrigued with Paul's genuineness and real talk (for a politician) and after watching him explain his views in depth for a full hour as opposed to 1 minute answers in a debate I think I'm going to vote for him in the primary.

If anyone is interested in actually listening to him articulate his views in full then check it out on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf6JWC6B5Zo&feature=user

Just keep clicking the link under the video that says "'This video is a response to Ron Paul on Glenn Beck Part 2", etc to watch the entire interview.

[Parkbandit]

Yea.. I watched that last night (most of it..) and also was impressed by Dr. Paul's openness. He didn't come across as the KooK I thought he was.

I really agree with most of what Glenn Beck talks about.. except his religious beliefs.. which can be ALOT. If you can get over that part.. he makes alot of fucking sense.

[Daniel]

Ron Paul is a whole lot of crazy

[Keller]

Ron Paul is a whole lot of crazy


I think you mean, "Ron Paul is a whole lot of crazy awesome"

I would definately vote for him.

[Seran]

I've seen Ron Paul at the plate in the last few debates, and will admit that I'm impressed. I wish however he stood a chance, but as most of the Republican party has strayed away from limited government, he'll never get the nomination.

Ron Paul is passionate, Kissinich is a nut job, and McCain (sorry to say) is a close second.

[TheEschaton]

How is Ron Paul "passionate" and Kucinich a "nut job"? They're both passionate, but at opposite ends of the spectrum.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

How is Ron Paul "passionate" and Kucinich a "nut job"? They're both passionate, but at opposite ends of the spectrum.

-TheE-


Because that end of the spectrum contains nutjobs?

[TheEschaton]

And you know how I feel about the Ron Paul end of the spectrum. :P

[Keller]

And you know how I feel about the Ron Paul end of the spectrum. :P


Think about the World w/ Ron Paul as President. Sure, he's got some revolutionary ideas, but are they bad?

You don't have to answer, because I don't want to make you defensive. But seriously, as you celebrate the end of the semester sit and reflect on what the world would look like under Ron Paul and whether it would really be bad.

[TheEschaton]

While I admire the man on a personal level, I think most of his policies to get rid of the government are revolutionary...but crazy. How would this country function? I tell you, it wouldn't.

-TheE-

[Seran]

The country would function the same way it did before entitlements, the same way it functioned before the creation of Department after Department desiged to do naught more but spend more tax dollars.

A government should do nothing but maintain the defense of the Nation as a whole, and over see the laws passed by each state to make sure it does not overbalance the rest.

[TheEschaton]

Well, I happen to disagree with what your view of what government should be.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

The problem with Paul is that he wants eliminate the IRS, income tax, various departments of (whatever) ... yet I'm not hearing any real solutions. He just implies that those are the solutions.

He doesn't have a plan in place to fund anything outside of tariffs and user fees.

I like some of his positions (such as returning to the constitution, national defense, anti-NAU, and so forth), but the only thing he has some sort of plan for is the cost of living increases for retired citizens.

Which if you're retired and elderly to begin with ... Paul doing most of what he says is great ... since by the time we, as a nation, really feel the impact ... well these people won't give a shit because they'll be dead.

[Clove]

The problem with Paul is that he wants eliminate the IRS, income tax, various departments of (whatever) ... yet I'm not hearing any real solutions. He just implies that those are the solutions...

You'll have to ask the Cato Institute.

[Latrinsorm]

The country would function the same way it did before entitlements, the same way it functioned before the creation of Department after Department desiged to do naught more but spend more tax dollars.Robber barons? Infant mortality rates seven times as high as they are today? How about some new Jim Crow laws? Is Ron Paul's plan to trust the states to always do what's right in stark contradiction to our 200+ years of history?

[Tsa`ah]

You'll have to ask the Cato Institute.

I'll pass. Any institution that implies our system of healthcare is superior due to the number of dialysis, bypass, and angioplasti patients that receive care (more than twice that of Canada and the UK combined) ... are obviously fucked in their collective heads.

[Hulkein]

Infant mortality rates seven times as high as they are today?

That completely ignores advances in health care.


How about some new Jim Crow laws?

They'd be ruled unconstitutional.

[Clove]

That completely ignores advances in health care.


You assume access to advanced health care.

[Latrinsorm]

They'd be ruled unconstitutional.Brown vs. Board was 1954. Why then did we need to pass (federally) a Civil Rights Act in 1964?

[Tsa`ah]

They'd be ruled unconstitutional.

That depends on the language of the laws and what they're discriminating against. You see Jim Crow and you think race, yet there are people in both state and US lawmaking positions that have want nothing more than to pass discriminatory laws against the gay and transgendered population. The only thing holding them back is activisism, not the Constitution.

But back to Paul ... I'm surprised at the support considering his lack of solutions.

[Hulkein]

You assume access to advanced health care.

No, I just assume access to an emergency room (which anyone has) to deliver the baby.

I don't know exactly what time period he used for the 'seven times higher infant mortality rate' but I think it is safe to assume that the higher rate was due mainly to more primitive hospital technology (or even the complete absence of a lot of people going to the hospital to deliver the baby).

What is funny is that Paul is an OB doctor.


Brown vs. Board was 1954. Why then did we need to pass (federally) a Civil Rights Act in 1964?

Why do you assume federal laws like that could not be passed even if Paul was president? I guess he could veto them but I have a hard time believing anyone would do something like that if it's something as needed as the Civil Rights Act was.

[Latrinsorm]

Why do you assume federal laws like that could not be passed even if Paul was president?Because I assume "limited federal government" means limiting the federal government versus the state governments. If he's for giving states power except for when he isn't, then is he really for smaller government?
I don't know exactly what time period he used for the 'seven times higher infant mortality rate' but I think it is safe to assume that the higher rate was due mainly to more primitive hospital technology (or even the complete absence of a lot of people going to the hospital to deliver the baby).The U.S. HHS department spends over a billion dollars a year on hospitals. I think it's safe to assume that many advances in implemented hospital technology would not occur if we strike a billion dollars from their collective budgets.

[Gan]

While I admire the man on a personal level, I think most of his policies to get rid of the government are revolutionary...but crazy. How would this country function? I tell you, it wouldn't.

-TheE-
I admire Paul for voice for change from the same old game in DC; however, I dont think that his ideas will be met with acceptance within the legislative branch and if anything it will continue to polarize what is already a polarized House and Senate. He's not a uniter unfortunately.

I have to admit that I'm becomming a little disillusioned with Rudy and his message. At this point I dont know who's got my vote. I just dont think it will be Ron Paul.

:(

[Clove]

The U.S. HHS department spends over a billion dollars a year on hospitals. I think it's safe to assume that many advances in implemented hospital technology would not occur if we strike a billion dollars from their collective budgets.

Oh you don't even have to stop there other federally funded programs effect public health and specifically infant health. W.I.C. comes to mind which I believe has a proposed budget for 2008 of 5.4 billion dollars.

[Parkbandit]

Robber barons? Infant mortality rates seven times as high as they are today? How about some new Jim Crow laws? Is Ron Paul's plan to trust the states to always do what's right in stark contradiction to our 200+ years of history?


God.. you are getting dumber and dumber.. almost Stanleyville. Is that really your argument? You also forgot that all the technology that we have come up with since 1913 would go away too.. we'd have to keep track of stuff with pencil and paper.

[Androidpk]

Pretty sure RP is going to get my vote at the upcoming NH primary.

[Hulkein]

Because I assume "limited federal government" means limiting the federal government versus the state governments. If he's for giving states power except for when he isn't, then is he really for smaller government?

I think he mainly is addressing limited fiscal federal government, but you're right there is no doubt he supports states rights all around. I just don't see 1) a Jim Crow type law surviving a challenge on constitutional grounds or 2) him being that rigid when it comes to his viewpoint.


The U.S. HHS department spends over a billion dollars a year on hospitals. I think it's safe to assume that many advances in implemented hospital technology would not occur if we strike a billion dollars from their collective budgets.

The states would have to step up and fund their own hospitals. If the IRS was abolished you can bet that the states would be increasing their taxes. It's just nicer knowing your tax money is going to something to help you and your family more directly. This also makes the politicians more accountable for what they do with your money.

[TheEschaton]

If Ron Paul won the Republican nomination, don't get me wrong, he'd be the most likely Republican I would ever consider voting for.

It would be a hard sell unless I heard more from him though.

[Parkbandit]

Ron Paul has zero chance of winning the nomination. He has neither the money, organization or political backing to do it.

[Hulkein]

Money isn't a problem for him at all. He has raised a hell of a lot more than say Huckabee.

And honestly what do you know about his organization? lol.

[Clove]

Although I do not see myself voting for Ron Paul- I’m not a true-believer in Austrian School economics and I disagree strongly with enough of his economic visions to be uncomfortable placing him in the President’s chair- I am happy that he is running and that his views are being heard nationally. I think he has expressed well thought-out perspectives on the Drug War, Patriot Act and Iraq and in the process he raises points that are important for the public to hear and consider.

His interest in shifting more power to States brings an excellent opportunity for a public discussion about what state and national governments should ultimately be responsible for. As much as I believe in the United States, in recent decades I see our federal government as something that has become external to its constituents and at times even hostile. I often view federal legislation, agencies, programs as less interested in public good than in public management and placing more control locally is one possible solution.

So while I can’t endorse voting for Ron Paul, I can encourage people listen to his ideas (with a grain of salt) and consider them as possibilities for future solutions.

[Latrinsorm]

From what I remember about Fred Thompson, he's a federalist but not to the cartoonish degree Ron Paul gives off.

[peam]

Keeping donations from white supremacist organizations is probably a bad idea.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_po/ron_paul_white_supremacist

[Clove]

Keeping donations from white supremacist organizations is probably a bad idea.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_po/ron_paul_white_supremacist

I'm sorry, but I'm stuck on a white supremacist with the unlikely and ironic name- Don Black.